Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050314000816.03fd0530@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 01:17:17 +0100
To: "Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips@quest.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Working Group submission: LTRU Registry Draft 00
In-Reply-To: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0A924C02@irvmbxw01.quest.c
 om>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0A924C02@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

On 21:10 12/03/2005, Addison Phillips said:
>Dear Editor,
>Please find attached in text format draft-00 of "draft-ietf-ltru-registry".
>I understand that this will be processed after IETF-62.

Thank you for this document.

I have asked guidance to several concerned parties to present a comment 
synthesis (I give time for responses - or for no-response freeing me). I 
also asked guidance to some WG-IDN members and other ccTLDs which could be 
of help towards a ccTLD BP IRT concerning the Unicode updates impact on IDNs.

For example a notion which can simplify the IDN support issue, but possibly 
introduce more complexity at the end of the day for the language tags in 
general (I do not know), is loosing the relations of IDN Tables - and 
tables tags - with languages to be in phase with real users demand and 
ccTLD political trends. As you know, priority today in the IDN area is the 
homographs/phishing issue. So I do not think I can come with real comment 
on this draft before end of the week. I suggest that we stick to the 
charter for the time being (obviously we can propose more) and to the 
consistency with other RFCs (in particular to IANA ICANN IETF MoU).

I would also suggest that we make sure Doug Barton is on this list? His 
guidance would be useful. The same for Harald as the RFC 3066 author 
(however he said he will be on vacation until May). The move of the Drafts 
to an IETF WG was a first good normalization move. The second one should be 
the support of the ietf-languages@iana.org list by the IANA (host, 
archives, subscription page, etc.).

best regards.
jfc
=====================================================
For your convenience:
Draft: 		http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-00.txt
Charter: 	http://ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
gmane: 	http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru
If you were Bcced for information and not familliar with the IETF process:
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2026.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2418.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3934.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3669.txt
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3160.txt
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-hoffman-taobis-02.txt
=====================================================
Jon Postel (RFC 1591): "The IANA is not in the business of deciding
what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list
  as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with
  the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which
entities should be and should not be on that list."
=====================================================
Brian Carpenter (RFC 1958/3.2): "If there are several ways of doing the
same thing, choose one. If a previous design, in the Internet context
or elsewhere, has successfully solved the same problem, choose the
same solution unless there is a good technical reason not to.
Duplication of the same protocol functionality should be avoided as far as
possible, without of course using this argument to reject improvements."
=====================================================
It seems that what works for countries and ISO 3166 since 1978 should
apply to languages and to ISO 693.
=====================================================


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru